a thought on marriage

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 9 2005, 05:18 PM']
Quietfire,

While I appreciate your thorough explanation on the catholic church's stance on marriage and sex. I cannot help but to find this comment beyond amusing.

[/quote]
I have no idea how old you are.
I am married.
I thank God everyday for the gift of my marriage.
I thank God everyday for the sacramental expression of love that my husband and I can partake in. (some people -even married ones- are unable to)

I dont expect you to understand.

Dont need to roll your eyes dear, I'm not noticing.

Maybe one day you'll understand. I was there once too you know.

Pax

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Mar 10 2005, 05:23 PM'] I have no idea how old you are.
I am married.
I thank God everyday for the gift of my marriage.
I thank God everyday for the sacramental expression of love that my husband and I can partake in. (some people -even married ones- are unable to)

I dont expect you to understand.

Dont need to roll your eyes dear, I'm not noticing.

Maybe one day you'll understand. I was there once too you know.

Pax [/quote]
You need to take the stick out. It's an amusing mental image.

Now, your contribution to this discussion?

[Quietfire]

Duly noted.
Stick has been removed.
That was my first post in some time and I had stopped because alot of lurkers seemed to find it amusing (as in rolling eyes and such) as to the respect due to God. I dont find it amusing, but thats my personal opinion.

Oh, and I found another use for that stick.

[burnsspivey]

Winner then?

I have to wonder if the reason this thread keeps fading is because you have no arguments left yet won't admit defeat.

I've heard a new and interesting argument for marriage equality.

Either marriage's exclusivity or its special status can be protected, but not both. Which is more important and why? "Will marriage be defined by what it expects or who it excludes?"

[burnsspivey]

C'mon people. This is ridiculous. There's no reason for silence on this issue.

Either marriage's exclusivity or its special status can be protected, but not both. Which is more important and why? "Will marriage be defined by what it expects or who it excludes?"

[burnsspivey]

Fine, I'll just recommend the following book.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076336/102-9799841-8257718"]Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America[/url] by Jonathan Rauch.

I think this is a particularly good source for conservatives. Obviously, I disagreed with many parts of it, but I know at least one catholic who nodded her head at the underlying assumptions of the book.

Or, if you're in a 'know your enemy' type of mood the following book is a good one.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974638870/qid=1111434662/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9799841-8257718"]I Do / I Don't: Q u e e r s on Marriage[/url] Wharton and Philips, Editors.

This has many different ideas on marriage in general and on marriage equlity in particular.

edit: I don't think qwerties is appropriate nor do I think that the word q u e e r should be edited. Especially when in reference to the title of a book. I humbly await my warning and edit. *sigh* Edited March 21, 2005 by burnsspivey

[track2004]

I glad someone bumped up the now 4 month old thread. I hadn't seen it back in December.

I just wanted to agree with the idea that marriage should be either enitrely legal or entirely religious. The government ought to either say any two people can enter into this particular type of contract (because that is what it is to the government) or they should leave it alone entirely and not give benefits to couples. If the first is attained the contract will be more like a business contract than anything and the religious significance will be whatever a person decides it should be. If the second holds out then people will be married in churches or with family and the government won't take notice. Either will work, but it is definately something the government needs to decide.

I personally thing that "civil-unions" or "gay marriage" or whatever you want to call it should be legal under The Constitution. Nothing anywhere says that two people cannot enter into a contract because they are both one gender. According to the law of the land marriage is a contract. I also disagree that gay couples will be horrible parents as some people will have you think. A child raised in a happy and loving home is privlidged. I did not grow up in a happy or loving home and that will affect me more than having two mommies would. A kid doesn't care who the love comes from or what gender the lover (one who loves rather than sexual partner) is because it is love and it is a home.

As a nother little note many homosexual people I know and many of the stories I have read suggest that many are having 'committment cerimonies' because they are not allowed to wed legally. This is alligned to the soley religious and family aspect of marriage. They stand before God and their loved ones and enter into a union, as many married couples on this site have. Forbidding their marriage by law will not stop them from doing this, it will only deny them the benefits of marriage that so many heterosexual couples take for granted.